On 2009-04-19, Angelin Lalev <lalev.ange...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 3:32 AM, Angelin Lalev <lalev.ange...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Solved, but I'm still curious: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>old hostname.fxp0 / 20 Kbit/s >> >> inet 192.168.1.6 255.255.255.0 NONE media 100baseTX mediaopt full-duplex >>
If you force the speed/duplex settings on one side of the link, you must also force it on the other side, or it will default to half-duplex (and as you saw, duplex mismatch causes serious performance problems). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>new hostname.fxp0 / 10+Mbit/s >> >> inet 192.168.1.6 255.255.255.0 NONE >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ifconfig output >> >> lo0: flags=8049<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 33204 >> groups: lo >> inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000 >> inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128 >> inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x3 >> fxp0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 >> lladdr 00:0b:cd:1e:e4:de >> groups: egress >> media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex) >> status: active >> inet 192.168.1.6 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255 >> inet6 fe80::20b:cdff:fe1e:e4de%fxp0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1 >> enc0: flags=0<> mtu 1536 >> >> I've read somewhere that autonegotiation may fail, but never seen it. >> I'll get another switch and try that again tomorrow. There are some special cases where autoneg fails, but they're rather uncommon, and usually in areas people know they're doing something unusual. IME, far more problems are caused by disabling autonegotiation than were ever caused by buggy autoneg implementations.
